He doesn’t have a hair piece. He has a comb over.
He’d get a ‘crew cut’ in prison I think. It would look better. So he has that going for him.
Televising Trump’s Georgia trial. Assuming it takes place before the election (which I’m afraid it probably won’t)
Good or Bad?
Good - it will let everyone see the evidence and the crimes up close and personal.
Bad - any publicity is good publicity as far as Trump is concerned. Plus the MAGAts will only see edited excerpts on their preferred propaganda outlets.
I do relish the thought of Biden beginning his second term at the same time Trump is starting jury selection in Georgia. While I’d love an early trial in DC or Georgia,(or Florida) I can’t imagine a sadder Trump than facing losing another election and a criminal trial simultaneously. So that delights me.
And again we see an instance where Trump has taken something that used to be a courtesy and he’s wiped his ass with it. What’s the DOJ policy on someone becoming President for the sole purpose of avoiding prosecution on 91 different charges spanning four indictments? Have they ever considered that the office could be taken by a criminal who moonlights as POTUS just to make his legal troubles go away? At some point they may put an asterisk on this policy to specify “provided said President is not a complete dingleberry who is in legitimate trouble from before.”
I’d call this good and bad because I think when Trump sees a camera in front of him, he’ll be compelled to perform. And for some unfathomable reason, he currently seems to think that all of his troubles will go away if he just shouts loudly enough and calls enough people names. So he’ll probably try this in court at some point and he’s going to be dismayed when it does not work. We’ll get to watch him have a very public and very undignified meltdown that will probably land him in a jail cell. Trump gets to cause the oppression that he’s counting on. This is going to make life difficult for all the people working at the courthouse who are just trying to get through the day.
I would pay cash money to see the scene like:
Judge: “Sit down and be quiet Mr. Trump, or I will hold you in contempt!”
Trump: “blah blah you are an incompetent marxist cofeve!”
Judge: “That’s 30 days in jail for you. Bailiff, take him away.”
It’s already happening:
Abigail Jo Shry, 43, of Alvin, Texas, allegedly called the chambers for U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and left a voicemail message on Aug. 5, promising to “kill anyone who went after former President Trump,” according to an affidavit.
“You are in our sights, we want to kill you,” Shry allegedly said. "Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, b***."*
Not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, I say - leaving a message at the courthouse like that. Dim-wit.
Problem is, if Trump regains office, the DOJ will be headed by one of his toadies who thinks that policy is just dandy.
The “at some point” to revoke this policy was five years ago.
I would too, but he won’t do that – he’s too much of a coward. What he’d do is wait until he’s away from the courthouse, then post a message on his social media site calling the judge a Marxist etc., etc. Notice he never insults anyone to their face. It’s always away from them so they can’t fight back in real time. That lets his message sink in first and further.
Judge: Mr. Trump, I understand that yesterday you put out a message on your social media accounts that said “The so-called judge in this case is a horrible incompetent marxist who is a racist. They are biased and hate me and are following Biden’s orders.”
I now give you the opportunity to repeat those exact words directly to me in this courtroom.
It’s a funny scene to imagine, but I don’t see that ever happening. A judge’s priority is to keep the courtroom orderly and professional as much as possible. That’s one of the reasons that they demand that everyone show proper respect to the bench. Actually inviting someone to be dramatic, unprofessional, and disrespectful is completely counterproductive to a judge’s reason for being there.
I wouldn’t be shocked if that’s what goes through the judge’s mind in the courtroom, though.
“I didn’t post that! Joe Biden did it. Or Hunter-- yeah: Hunter Biden did it from his laptop. Arrest THEM!”
The judge needn’t challenge Trump to repeat it to his face, but he can and should ask him if the quotation is accurate, just so he can then issue an appropriate sanction from the bench. Amounts to pretty much the same thing.
That sounds far more plausible to me.
It doesn’t sound at all likely to me. Trump has the right to remain silent. Why would he say anything?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! < gasp > ha ha ha ha ha hahaha
Because of personality defects that render it difficult for him to be silent when that is the most sensible course of action. He seems to have managed well enough in court in the past, but he’s clearly feeling some strain, so even odds he won’t be able to control himself going forward.
What I’m getting at is that a contempt process that requires an accused to repeat the words in court is toothless. The accused just says, “I decline to comment”. The court should still be able to find the accused in contempt by proof of the statements through other means.
As another wag has said, he has the right, just not the ability!
(I wish I’d first said that.)
I cannot picture trump availing himself of that option.